Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. - (1.)The revision petitioner is the accused in Sessions Case No.130 of 2015 on the file of the District & Sessions Judge at Karimnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 I.P.C., which is outcome of Crime No.149 of 2014 of III Town Police Station, Karimnagar. After investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet, which was taken cognisance by the learned committal Magistrate and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and after framing of charges from the pre-charge hearing, trial commenced. It is in the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined, on behalf of the prosecution, and Exs.P1 to 13 and Exs.M.O.1 were marked.
(2.)As per the charge-sheet, L.Ws.13 and 14 were cited as mediators to the so called disclosure panchanama of the accused leading to alleged discovery of facts within the meaning of Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution not chosen to examine the said mediators and after the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. and after defence evidence, the matter is while coming for arguments, the prosecution filed the application under Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. in Crl.M.P. No.1515 of 2016 to recall P.W.9 - I.O. for exhibition of the so called mediators panchanama. Since the same was allowed on 09-01-2017 by the impugned order, the accused maintained the revision. The impugned order reads that as per the version of the prosecution, due to inadvertence, mediators panchanama of the disclosure of accused leading to discovery of facts was not exhibited and sought to accept the recall of P.W.9 as it is essential. The accused contended saying that the so-called panchanama is hit by Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and is inadmissible. The Court ultimately held in the impugned order by referring to the respective contentions that the relevancy of panchanama can be decided from the arguments of both sides and at present marking the confession panchanama in the evidence is essential in ordering for recall of P.W.9.
(3.)The contentions in the grounds of revision vis--vis oral submissions of the learned counsel for the accused revision petitioner are that the Sessions Judge ought to have seen that there is no admissible portion within the meaning of Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act to mark and exhibit the so called confessional panchanama which could have been accepted through mediators and their non-examination is with no explanation and the impugned orders saying no prejudice would be caused to the accused is no answer to allow when the same is hit by Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act and thereby sought for allowing the revision setting aside the impugned order.